"Tough to Swallow" ~ Alberta Seniors

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Thats the problem with North American society and its attitudes toward the old. The old are seen as a burden on society, not a valuble contributing member.

So changing OAS eligibility to reduce costs is okay and a sign that Harper and this followers (both federally and provincially) love and respect seniors?

And to address tranny's point, it is possible to raise the issue of food quality or quality of care without saying the governing Party is evil or uncaring. Even you should realize that.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Let's see if you have the same attitude in 40 years when you are the recipient of these high quality dishes.

I will love me some Soylent Green

[Smartcar]

The 6% increase in food cost likely doesn't factor in costs of food prep labour or on-site nutritionists. The producers of the video have an obvious axe to grind, AHS would not have gone this route if it didn't save money or allowed better control of overall nutritional standards. IMO for long term care better nutrition is more important than taste and texture.

[driveway]

Based on the AHS budget AHS spend 75 million dollars total on "food and dietary" expenses (table, page 37). Now, that's for the entire AHS, so the budget for food going to seniors homes has to be significantly less than that.

And, this is from the very first page of the 2012 budget tax plan

If Alberta had any other provincial tax system, Albertans and Alberta
businesses would pay at least $10 .7#billion more in taxes each year.

Now, you can argue that Alberta's low tax rate encourages growth and investment, however, Alberta did not enjoy a significant advantage over other provinces in terms of GDP growth from 2005-2010. Saskatchewan, for example, increased their share of Canada's GDP by .71% compared to .22% for Alberta AND increased their actual GDP by almost 50%, compared to about 20% growth for Alberta. Saskatchewan is the very province who's tax rates would increase our government revenues by that 10.7 billion.

Source: Wikipedia

A minor, in fact almost completely negligible, increase in revenues in this province would be more than enough to fund a huge increase in the quality of all kinds of health care.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by driveway

Based on the AHS budget AHS spend 75 million dollars total on "food and dietary" expenses (table, page 37). Now, that's for the entire AHS, so the budget for food going to seniors homes has to be significantly less than that.

And, this is from the very first page of the 2012 budget tax plan

Now, you can argue that Alberta's low tax rate encourages growth and investment, however, Alberta did not enjoy a significant advantage over other provinces in terms of GDP growth from 2005-2010. Saskatchewan, for example, increased their share of Canada's GDP by .71% compared to .22% for Alberta AND increased their actual GDP by almost 50%, compared to about 20% growth for Alberta. Saskatchewan is the very province who's tax rates would increase our government revenues by that 10.7 billion.

Source: Wikipedia

A minor, in fact almost completely negligible, increase in revenues in this province would be more than enough to fund a huge increase in the quality of all kinds of health care.

I'm sure the Wildrose Party would support raising taxes and increasing spending if it means better health care and care for seniors. I'm sure their supporters will flood your post with 'Thanks'.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

You said "Try eating a months worth of these generic frozen meals three times a day for 30 days" ... I'm telling you I did, thats all.

(FTR: didn't have mom care packages - my mom offered, but I declined... not really a big deal to me, I can survive on substandard food. I didn't eat at bars... too $$. I didn't have a car, Safeway was a 30 min walk each way and I didn't have time to do that, ever really...)

I wasn't complaining either. Quite the opposite, actually - I'm just saying I did and it was fine.

If I had the diet now that I did when I was in uni, I'd be a big, fat, unhealthy slob. The human body is pretty amazing on what it can use as fuel. However, the ability to wring any nutrition from crappy food declines with age. So you can imagine why a university kid eating crappy food is not even remotely similar to a senior eating crappy food.

Plus if you start feeling bad, you can change your diet. A senior will just get put on more meds - which is the ultimate irony as I'm pretty sure pharmaceuticals cost more than some decent food.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You have obviously grown up in a fairly well to do family if you think that all it takes. Some people.... no A LOT OF PEOPLE... live from pay check to pay check in low paying jobs, raising their kids, paying the bills, paying the rent (yes... I said RENT... A LOT OF PEOPLE cannot afford to buy a home and get the security that goes with it)

Not everybody goes through life with a silver spoon up their ass from cradle to grave. Some have worked damn hard and in the end have very little to show for it.

I hate to have to point this one out but:

"Yeah, and?"

Your contention, it seems to me, is that many people go through life working excruciatingly hard and wind up with little to show for it.

As such, the Government should....what? Give them some kind of 'lifetime achievement award' or something?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by zuluking

If I had the diet now that I did when I was in uni, I'd be a big, fat, unhealthy slob. The human body is pretty amazing on what it can use as fuel. However, the ability to wring any nutrition from crappy food declines with age. So you can imagine why a university kid eating crappy food is not even remotely similar to a senior eating crappy food.

Plus if you start feeling bad, you can change your diet. A senior will just get put on more meds - which is the ultimate irony as I'm pretty sure pharmaceuticals cost more than some decent food.

If you are in residence you cant change your diet though. You have prepaid in advance for the food. Asking a student to go out and buy additional food is the same as asking the senior to have their family bring them other food. It is actually quite a comparable situation. And having eaten rez food for a year. The bagged eggs look like the identical product. I can say it was okay and some of the meals were good. So as long as the LTR food is at a similar standard to University Rez food I don't have an issue.

I think that ensuring nutritional value is very important and if the food isn't as healthy as it needs to be then something should be done. If all the complaints are about taste then I don't have much sympathy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

A minor, in fact almost completely negligible, increase in revenues in this province would be more than enough to fund a huge increase in the quality of all kinds of health care.

I don't know if this is true, you are assuming that we are efficient at spending money and that spending more is directly linked to improving outcomes. I would contend that if you look at per capita dollars spent in 1st world countries we already spend significanly more than others for not as good outcomes. I think we have hit the point of diminishing returns on spending and need to re-organize how we deliver care to improve outcomes.

The idea that more money is the solution is unsustainalbe.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well you tell me; if the NDP were to come out federally today and say we need to cut taxes to spur growth, would you call them on the obvious about-face or laud them because you agree? I know I would have some questions about whether they were trying to score points on something that they otherwise had no intention of actually implementing just a few short weeks ago.

Like I say, I agree that something ought to he done here, so my questions aren't with the Wildrose. I do question the motive though. For a party that advocates private health and a "get what you pay for" ideology everywhere else it seems incongruent with their other policies.

The other question I have is whether I'm really asking that much of our opposition party here? I'm saying that they should provide a rational solution to the problem. They don't like the current situation, and thats fair. I happen to think that not many do (although on this board there are a few). Opposition parties shouldn't only come out and say "that's bad". That's the part that is pure grandstanding.

I feel like you don't quite understand how politics work. It isn't the job of the opposition to provide solutions to complicated issues. They are supposed to draw attention to problems that need fixing. Proposing a solution is ridiculous as the solution is far more complicated than can be drawn up in the opposition boardroom. Solving the problem requires proper research and discussions with all the stakeholders involved. This work would be impossible for the opposition to undertake as they don't have the power to do things like direct groups such as AHS to investigate and report.

Politicians simply do not provide the solutions to complex problems. They issue guidance and form working groups to investigate and propose solutions that are then debated by the politicians and sent back for tweaking and further consultation.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think the province's responsibility ends at providing nutritious food. They seem to be living up to that responsibility. If you want better food, you'll have to pay for it. If you can't afford better food I guess you're SOL. Just like every other person in the country.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Agreed. Some of these people only paid taxes in this country for 50 or 60 years. Now that they are at an advanced age, they can pound sand, or eat it.

Sure, they might have fought in a war or something, but they did that on the government dime too. Or they could be your parents, or grandparents, but who cares?

Money matters more than anything else. Food, dignity, compassion... these things aren't free.

I want to respond to this because you received 29 "thanks" for your post, so you're obviously echoing a popular sentiment on the board, which I think obligates me to expand on my point.

First, I hope at least some of the people thanking your post recognized they're thanking a straw-man argument. I don't think people should "pound sand" if they can't afford to eat. I think as a community/province we should feed our seniors a nutritious, well-balanced diet. If we are indeed doing that - which is the government's position - then I think we are doing right by these people.

I think it's unrealistic and naive to say we have to have delicious meals for seniors. It would be impossible to cater to the thousands of different tastes and dietary requirements each of these people would have. Bland, simple but nutritious foods are better in this case.

I love how you bring up war vets, too, as though I'm trying to throw them under the bus. That's ridiculous as we are taking care of everybody's basic needs, whether vet or not. What about the people who didn't work hard in their lives, yet we're subsidizing now? I'm not saying we shouldn't feed them, but I also don't think we should increase their standard of living beyond what they've ever enjoyed by giving them these great meals at the expense of other, more important programs.

I've seen people on this board talk about how you should do something you love for your career instead of chasing money. I've always disagreed with that. I think you have to worry about your financial responsibilities first and part of that is planning for your retirement. As somebody who plans almost obsessively about my financial health, I sure as hell don't want to be subsidizing some guy on this board who is "doing what he loves" for no money in his limited money-earning years, while I'm sacrificing my current enjoyment of life (to a degree or at least relatively speaking) so I can ensure a better future for myself, my wife and my kids. I wouldn't want to see anybody starve since I'm not a monster, but the system is already set up to see to this so I think we're doing the right thing as a society already.

It sounds to me like some people want to turn our system into something that resembles communism at some point. People with more money get to buy better stuff. That's true of somebody who is one month old all the way until the day they die. It seems you guys want to wipe out that natural inequity in Alberta as soon as somebody enters a LTC facility and I just don't see how you think that makes any sense whatsoever.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I feel like you don't quite understand how politics work. It isn't the job of the opposition to provide solutions to complicated issues. They are supposed to draw attention to problems that need fixing. Proposing a solution is ridiculous as the solution is far more complicated than can be drawn up in the opposition boardroom. Solving the problem requires proper research and discussions with all the stakeholders involved. This work would be impossible for the opposition to undertake as they don't have the power to do things like direct groups such as AHS to investigate and report.

Politicians simply do not provide the solutions to complex problems. They issue guidance and form working groups to investigate and propose solutions that are then debated by the politicians and sent back for tweaking and further consultation.

That's all well and good. Basically the opposition adds absolutely no value then, is that your position? I would completely bego to differ, and I think that the opposition has a lot more to offer other than just disagreeing with the government or saying that they government is wrong without adding any realistic alternatives.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's all well and good. Basically the opposition adds absolutely no value then, is that your position? I would completely bego to differ, and I think that the opposition has a lot more to offer other than just disagreeing with the government or saying that they government is wrong without adding any realistic alternatives.

I think they offer a lot by identifying and championing issues.
Look at the Land Use Framework from the previous session. The first draft that passed had some terrible passages in it that were passed. The opposition continued to hammer the government and highlight the problems with the bill until they relented and revised the contentious portions of the bill.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by zuluking

If I had the diet now that I did when I was in uni, I'd be a big, fat, unhealthy slob. The human body is pretty amazing on what it can use as fuel. However, the ability to wring any nutrition from crappy food declines with age. So you can imagine why a university kid eating crappy food is not even remotely similar to a senior eating crappy food.

Plus if you start feeling bad, you can change your diet. A senior will just get put on more meds - which is the ultimate irony as I'm pretty sure pharmaceuticals cost more than some decent food.

Again, I'm saying if it were a nutrition issue, I can sympathetic. Complaining that the food doesn't taste good enough when its a free handout... that part I'm not sympathetic.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Again, I'm saying if it were a nutrition issue, I can sympathetic. Complaining that the food doesn't taste good enough when its a free handout... that part I'm not sympathetic.

It's not a free handout. People have to pay to live in these LTC facilities.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's not a free handout. People have to pay to live in these LTC facilities.

These patient-costs (like food) at these facilities are subsidized to varying degrees by the government. That's why this is an issue that involves the government, Dion.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Sliver

These patient-costs (like food) at these facilities are subsidized to varying degrees by the government. That's why this is an issue that involves the government, Dion.

And that's part of the problem. The Seniors realize they are being subsidized, and don't speak up, as they fear their subsidy will be cut off if they do. So through fear, and the inability to articulate the problem, these types of problems persist for long periods of time...until the Opposition is strong enough to hold the Government to account. I agree it does seem strange that the WR are making the complaint, and not the more socially minded Liberals or NDP. However, I could care less who is spearheading the change...as long as it happens.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

And that's part of the problem. The Seniors realize they are being subsidized, and don't speak up, as they fear their subsidy will be cut off if they do. So through fear, and the inability to articulate the problem, these types of problems persist for long periods of time...until the Opposition is strong enough to hold the Government to account. I agree it does seem strange that the WR are making the complaint, and not the more socially minded Liberals or NDP. However, I could care less who is spearheading the change...as long as it happens.

I honestly believe you completely made that up out of thin air. Has there ever been one single case in the history of Alberta you could point to where a senior's food was taken away because they complained that it wasn't yummy enough? This isn't a concentration camp we're talking about lol.

[Zevo]

If it's simply a case of funding, cut child tax credits and put that money towards better care for seniors. Why should the government pay for someone to have a kid if they can't afford it? Talk about burdens to society.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Again, I'm saying if it were a nutrition issue, I can sympathetic. Complaining that the food doesn't taste good enough when its a free handout... that part I'm not sympathetic.

True - I made an assumption that it was of poor nutritional value.